Novel Opiate-Free Anesthetic Technique for Major Urologic Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: We postulated that an opiate-free (OF) general anesthesia (GA) technique could adequately control a patient's pain without adversely affecting recovery. We compared patients undergoing major urologic procedures with and without opiate-based GA. METHODS: A propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing hospital length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, ileus occurrence, postanesthesia care unit, and total opiate consumption, as well as sedation and hemodynamic variables. The data are expressed as medians and were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. P < 0.05 indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 166 patients were evaluated in both the OF group and the opiate-based treatment group. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification and age were comparable, with most surgeries being laparoscopic and confined to the bladder, kidney, and prostate gland. The median opiate consumption in morphine equivalents in the postanesthesia care unit was 7.7 mg (range 5-11.7 mg) for the OF cohort versus 11.7 mg (range 5-17.3 mg) for the control group (P < 0.001). Similarly, the median total postoperative opiate consumption in morphine equivalents was 23.9 mg (range 13.8-42.4 mg) for the OF group compared with 32.1 mg (range 17.38-57.51 mg) for the control group (P = 0.0081). The median hospital length of stay for the OF group was 1.4 days (range 1.2-2.3 days) versus 1.3 days (range 1.2-2.4 days) for the control group (P = 0.8466). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference in opiate consumption postoperatively for patients who underwent an OF technique compared with a conventional opiate-based technique. This technique appears to be a possible alternative approach, without any apparent untoward consequences during admission.

Do Not Resuscitate, Anesthesia, and Perioperative Care: A Not So Clear Order.

BACKGROUND: Advance directives guide healthcare providers to listen to and respect patients' wishes regarding their right to die in circumstances when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is required, and hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission are required to have a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) policy in place. However, when surgery and anesthesia are necessary for the care of the patient with a DNR order, this advance directive can create ethical dilemmas specifically involving patient autonomy and the physician's responsibility to do no harm. METHODS: This paper discusses the ethical considerations regarding perioperative DNR orders and provides guidance on how to handle situations that may arise in the conduct of perioperative care. RESULTS: Because of the potential conflicts between ethical care and the restrictions of DNR orders, it is critically important to discuss the medical and ethical issues surrounding this clinical scenario with the patient or surrogate prior to any surgical intervention. However, many anesthesiologists do not adequately address this ethical dilemma prior to the procedure. CONCLUSION: Practitioners are advised to first consider what is best for the patient and, when in doubt, to communicate with patients or surrogates and with colleagues to arrive at the most appropriate care plan. If irreconcilable conflicts arise, consultation with the institution's bioethics committee, if available, is beneficial to help reach a resolution.

Intraoperative oxygen administration does not reduce the incidence or severity of nausea or vomiting associated with neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia. We designed this study to evaluate the efficacy of supplemental oxygen administration for reducing nausea and vomiting in women having neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of women having standardized neuraxial anesthesia and postoperative analgesia for cesarean delivery. After umbilical cord clamp, women were randomized to receive either 70% or 21% oxygen for surgery. Nausea and vomiting were recorded at three time intervals: induction until delivery, delivery until the end of surgery, and at 24 postoperative hours. chi2 and Student's t-tests were used to determine significant differences. RESULTS: The study groups were similar with respect to demographic and procedural variables. There was no significant difference between groups in the overall incidences of nausea and vomiting. The incidence of severe nausea (rated by mothers) in the oxygen group predelivery, postdelivery, and postoperatively was 3%, 7%, and 9%, respectively, and in the medical air group was 3%, 9%, and 7%, respectively. Severe vomiting (>2 episodes) in both the oxygen and medical air groups were 0%, 2%, and 4% at the corresponding time intervals. These differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Administration of supplemental oxygen during cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia does not decrease the incidence or severity of intraoperative or postoperative nausea or vomiting.